Monday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Monday, January 4. 2016

Theodore Dalrymple - An Englishman reflects on his travels in urban America.

Free markets and morals

From NYC to Harvard: the war on Asian success

The 13 Most Ridiculously PC Moments on College Campuses in 2015

Star Wars Is Making Zillions of Dollars. Here's How.

The 7 smallest microaggressions of 2015

Why colleges cave to the demands of student activists

Just what is it that academics have to fear if they stand up for common decency, instead of letting campus barbarians run amok? At a prestigious college like Swarthmore, every student who trampled on other people’s rights could be expelled and there would be plenty of prospective students available to take their places.

Rahm Emanuel’s Cuban Vacation

Escape From Chicago - Chicago: The mess that Democrats made.

National Community Reinvestment Coalition president John Taylor points
to “racial disparities in mortgage lending” in Baltimore as reason
enough for government to force banks to make more loans to blacks

Sowell: 2015 was the year of the lie

Who’s lying, Hillary or members of several Benghazi victims’ families?

Prof Lindzen:

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.”

I'll Miss The Polar Ice Caps

“Climate Change” Expert Jailed for Conning EPA out of $900K

Cruz/Sessions bill would stop sneaky Obama sabotage of skilled U.S. workers

DHS doesn’t even know how many visa violators there are.

HILLARY Says Guns “Will Not Keep Americans Safe” – DONALD TRUMP Responds

Rex Murphy: Should it be Trump v. Clinton in 2016, it will be great fun

Can Hillary Go Out In Public?

Re Bill's wife: Are you going to avoid speaking the painfully, utterly obvious truth:
This unaccomplished, malicious, pant-suited punchline is where she is
only because she married Bill Clinton?

Puerto Rico etc: NOW WE have The PRICKs (Puerto Rico, Illinois, Connecticut, Kentucky)

The Many Things That Could Go Badly Wrong for Europe in 2016

The Middle East Couldn’t Possibly Get Worse. Could It?

European Court: Ireland Can't Deport Suspected ISIS Recruiter

Overwhelmed by 'Migrants,' Sweden Throws in the Towel as Europe Faces 'General, Permanent Terror Threat'

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 06:53 | Comments (37) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

QUOTE:

I'll Miss The Polar Ice Caps

Everyone knows that there is a great deal of year-to-year variations, so where's the mean for comparison?

Turns out that the graph provided masked out coastal zones. Here's the updated graph showing the mean and standard deviation.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

#1 Zachriel on 2016-01-04 09:59 (Reply)

The question is whether the mean of the satellite surveys from 1979 (when they first became available) to 2000 are either representative of the entire 20th Century or simply an artifact of the time period and not what would be considered a 'normal' range if periods like the 1930s (where the icecap was predicted to disappear) were included.

But since we didn't have satellite coverage then, we'll never know. Give it a hundred years to establish a real baseline, and we'll have a better idea of what's 'normal'.

#1.1 JLawson on 2016-01-04 11:41 (Reply)

JLawson: But since we didn't have satellite coverage then, we'll never know.

Because there were no observations of Arctic sea ice before the advent of artificial satellites. See Walsh & Chapman, 20th-century sea-ice variations from observational data, International Glaciological Society 2001.

#1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-04 16:54 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Sowell: 2015 was the year of the lie

Revivial of a redux of a resuscitation.

QUOTE:

Who’s lying, Hillary or members of several Benghazi victims’ families?

Doesn't have to be either or. It's not unusual for people to remember things differently.

The fact is that the video, Innocence of Muslims, resulted in widespread protests and outbreaks of violence against American outposts across the Muslim world. The difference is that there were armed militias in Benghazi, and the ambassador was taking inordinate risks.

#2 Zachriel on 2016-01-04 10:07 (Reply)

The fact is we know that Hillary didn't believe the film was the cause of attack because that's what she told Chelsea. She had no reason to lie or mislead her. Hillary also told the Prime Minister of Egypt the same thing.

People sometimes do remember things differently, but it seems that all of the parents of those killed in Benghazi remembered it the same way. (one strike against Hillary) I would also think that you would tend to remember what the Secretary of State told you about the death of your son. (two strikes against Hillary) We also know that she, as well as her husband, has a history of playing fast and loose with the facts. (three strikes, she's out) I take the side of the families. I think most do.

#2.1 mudbug on 2016-01-04 10:27 (Reply)

mudbug: The fact is we know that Hillary didn't believe the film was the cause of attack because that's what she told Chelsea. She had no reason to lie or mislead her. Hillary also told the Prime Minister of Egypt the same thing.

What is your evidence of a lie?

mudbug: People sometimes do remember things differently, but it seems that all of the parents of those killed in Benghazi remembered it the same way.

The assertions are not entirely consistent. Either the conversations were individual, or they remember things a bit differently.

#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-04 11:18 (Reply)

Z: What is your evidence of a lie?

Sigh... Did you even read my post?

Z: The assertions are not entirely consistent. Either the conversations were individual, or they remember things a bit differently.

Did any of them remember that she told them that the responsibility for the attack was caused by jihadis? Or that she was going to make sure the terrorists responsible for their son's death would be punished? Or that the administration is going to tell everyone that a youtube video is responsible for their son's death, but that she didn't agree and that the intelligence she had convinced her that the video had nothing to do with it?

#2.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-01-04 13:06 (Reply)

mudbug: Sigh... Did you even read my post?

Yes. You alluded to evidence, but didn't provide the evidence.

mudbug: Did any of them remember that she told them that the responsibility for the attack was caused by jihadis?

The meeting occurred just three days after the event. Here's a possible scenario:

Question: What about those videos we've heard about?
Clinton: We'll get to the bottom of it and hold people accountable.

#2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-04 16:08 (Reply)

I provided evidence in my comment @14:44. I didn't provide the link per se, because when I did, my comment got caught in the MF spam filter. If you put those terms I provided on a search engine, you will find the evidence fast enough.

#2.1.1.1.1.1 Gringo on 2016-01-04 16:39 (Reply)

Is there any evidence your possible scenario took place? No. To my knowledge, Hillary never denied that she told the families that she was going to get the guy who made that video.

#2.1.1.1.1.2 mudbug on 2016-01-05 08:45 (Reply)

mudbug: Is there any evidence your possible scenario took place? No.

No. It's just an example of how such misunderstandings could occur. The families have different recollections, including some who say it never happened.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/01/04/what-benghazi-family-members-say-hillary-clinton-said-about-the-video/

mudbug: Hillary never denied that she told the families that she was going to get the guy who made that video.

Clinton would obviously not want to publicly contradict statements from the families. However, she has denied that she blamed the videos.

This is not much different than other right wing attacks that rely on picking and choosing evidence to suit a preconceived narrative.

#2.1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-05 09:46 (Reply)

Testimony before House Benghazi Committee. Try Sharyl Atkisson's blog. "Hillary Clinton’s public vs. private Benghazi facts." October 22,2015. Which mentions Hillary's e-mail to her daughter, and also her communication with the prime minister of Egypt.

#2.1.1.2 Gringo on 2016-01-04 14:44 (Reply)

Gringo: Testimony before House Benghazi Committee.

There's been thousands of hours of testimony, most of it of little relevance.

Gringo: Try Sharyl Atkisson's blog. "Hillary Clinton’s public vs. private Benghazi facts." October 22,2015.

QUOTE:

“some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

First of all, the quote is not accurate.

QUOTE:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/09/197654.htm

The statement was made only a few hours after the events. As there had been multiple demonstrations and outbreaks of violence across the Middle East related to the video, it was clearly important for the U.S. government to distance itself from the video. Furthermore, in the same talk, she refers to "heavily armed militants".

QUOTE:

Clinton also informed Egypt’s prime minister and Libya’s president that the attacks were “preplanned” and “had nothing to do with” an anti-Islamic video posted on YouTube.

The militants did use the video as justification for the attack.

#2.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-04 16:45 (Reply)

Z-Team takes Hillary quote from Arkisson blog:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:
“some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

First of all, the quote is not accurate.

The Clinton statement you quoted talked about the attacks YESTERDAY, whereas the Atkisson blog referred to a Hillary quote from "THE NIGHT OF THE ATTACKS."

QUOTE:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

This statement from Hillary Clinton is from September 11, the night of the attacks.

Z-Team asks for evidence, and when provided article with such evidence, claims that part of the article is not accurate. The statement he claims is inaccurate is a quote from the night of the attacks, and to "prove" the statement is not accurate, Z-Team provides a statement from the day after the attacks.

Way to go, Z-Team.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/09/197628.htm Is that from ignorance or from deliberate obfuscation of the issue?

#2.1.1.2.1.1 Gringo on 2016-01-04 18:07 (Reply)

Gringo: The Clinton statement you quoted talked about the attacks YESTERDAY, whereas the Atkisson blog referred to a Hillary quote from "THE NIGHT OF THE ATTACKS."

Okay.

Gringo: "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet."

Which is true. The video was used to justify the attacks in Benghazi, as well as other attacks against U.S. outposts.

#2.1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-04 18:18 (Reply)

The “protestors" and “armed militias” in Benghazi just happened to have a well trained mortar team and spotter, able in combat conditions under fire, to sight the unit, adjust windage, bracket rounds, and fire for effect from defilade, to take out targets on the rooftop of a building.

Oh, yes. Seen it done by rag-tag, undisciplined, adrenaline fueled militias everyday of the week.

#2.2 Scullman on 2016-01-04 14:02 (Reply)

Scullman: The “protestors" and “armed militias” in Benghazi just happened to have a well trained mortar team and spotter, able in combat conditions under fire, to sight the unit, adjust windage, bracket rounds, and fire for effect from defilade, to take out targets on the rooftop of a building.

They weren't protesters, but "heavily armed militants" with experience in combat.

#2.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-04 17:02 (Reply)

They likely had tons of experience as half-assed stoned Libyan fighters (what you call "militants") probably previously employed as cab drivers or unemployed date tasters.
Possibly able to launch rocket propelled grenades from the shadows (since it can be done by twelve year olds) and fire off AK rounds, but sight a roof target with mortar tube and bipod, from defilade, while under automatic weapons fire from U.S. Special operators at night?

Give me a f$@king break! Sorry. That's not SOP for "Libyan militants".

Those were Al-Islamiya guest stars, or whatever they call themselves today. They never saw that bullshit video, and either way, Hillary Clinton is a stone cold fucking liar. You want to back her ass? That’s on you.

#2.2.1.1 Sculman on 2016-01-04 17:42 (Reply)

Sculman: That's not SOP for "Libyan militants".

The Libyans had just ended a civil war, which involved help from foreign forces.

#2.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-04 18:22 (Reply)

I'm confused, either your Hillary Clintons lawyer, or the lawyer for those Libyan/Al-Islamiya assholes who killed four Americans.

Must feel good.

I Know, I know. You're gonna' shade-highlight my statement and spin it back on me with a really cool twist.

What a dick.

#2.2.1.1.1.1 Scullman on 2016-01-04 21:18 (Reply)

Scullman: either your Hillary Clintons lawyer, or the lawyer for those Libyan/Al-Islamiya assholes who killed four Americans.

Wrong on both counts.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-05 09:47 (Reply)

What? No stupid shade-highlighted comeback?

What am I, chopped liver?

And anyway, why don't you give it a rest with the Clinton Defense Team bullshit. She's a total fraud. You know it, I know it, everyone on this website knows it, and over 60% of the country when asked, thinks she's liar and an untrustworthy.

Nice way to begin a job interview for the most important position in the world.
I'll give her this though, she kept those legs covered up, 24/7, since the early nineties. I think most of us would rather be water boarded, than to have to see them again.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Scullman on 2016-01-05 10:42 (Reply)

Scullman: What? No stupid shade-highlighted comeback? What am I, chopped liver?

You didn't make a relevant argument or raise any new points.

Scullman: I'll give her this though, she kept those legs covered up, 24/7, since the early nineties.

Sure. That's convincing.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/12/saying_nice_things_about_hillary_clinton_has_become_a_subversive_act.html

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-05 11:35 (Reply)

Z is like a turing experiment: Become increasingly vague as its various diversions and tributaries take over from all the failed fallacies. Eventually it's making two-word replies about peanut butter when someone originally brought up a national issue.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.2 Ten on 2016-01-05 12:11 (Reply)

It is unusual for people to remeber things that differently.

Sociopaths are good at remembering the truth as what they later believe it should have been. And I mean "remembering" in the usual sense, not as a euphemism for lying. They actually believe it, which is part of what makes them convincing. Which is also why written and recorded material is more important than Q&A with such people.

The Clintons are always going to be more convincing when they hold the microphone than even cold, hard evidence can overcome. It is both natural to them and honed over many years. Remember the voice of Saruman. Don't listen to them, ever, nor the analysis of those who listen. Just read the transcript and look at the evidence.

#2.3 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2016-01-04 16:32 (Reply)

Assistant Village Idiot: It is unusual for people to remeber things that differently.

Um, no.

That doesn't mean Clinton is right, and they are wrong, only that memories are nearly always biased.

#2.3.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-04 17:04 (Reply)

They have no motive to have heard anything but what she said with approximate accuracy. She has every reason to remember differently, as there is physical evidence that she knew differently.

When one person remembers that it is green, and another says it's teal, or maybe, maybe blue, that is the sort of different memory that we experience in everyday life. But that does not stretch to the completely different versions you are trying to pass off as "just one of those things that happen, you know?" This ill becomes you. She is lying, and you defend her with sophistries.

#2.3.1.1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2016-01-04 22:40 (Reply)

Assistant Village Idiot: They have no motive to have heard anything but what she said with approximate accuracy.

Yet the families disagree with what was said.

QUOTE:

None of the other family members who agreed to be interviewed said Clinton made any reference to a video. Indeed, other family members have been puzzled by the confident assertions of Woods and Smith.

And the recollections have changed.

QUOTE:

At another point in the interview, Woods recounted the conversation this way: “Hillary said, ‘We’re going to go, and we’re going to take care of these people that were responsible for your son’s death.’

Two days later, on Glenn Beck’s “The Blaze,” Woods quoted Clinton as saying: “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/01/04/what-benghazi-family-members-say-hillary-clinton-said-about-the-video/

#2.3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-05 09:51 (Reply)

Re: Star Wars Is Making Zillions of Dollars

And yet, Disney's stock has pretty much done nothing but fall since the movie came out.

#3 mudbug on 2016-01-04 10:30 (Reply)

mudbug: And yet, Disney's stock has pretty much done nothing but fall since the movie came out.

The value of Star Wars is already included in the stock price. The movie would have made a lot of money even if it were lousy.

#3.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-04 11:20 (Reply)

Maybe, but if that were the case, I would expect the price to be at least a recent high, but instead the day before the release the price was the lowest it had been for two months. After a brief pop, the stock cratered.

#3.2 mudbug on 2016-01-04 13:10 (Reply)

mudbug: Maybe, but if that were the case, I would expect the price to be at least a recent high

Buy the rumor, sell the news.

#3.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-01-04 16:57 (Reply)

Re: Chicago: The mess that Democrats made

Correction: Another mess the Democrats made

#4 mudbug on 2016-01-04 10:56 (Reply)

"Ireland Can't Deport Suspected ISIS Recruiter". I believe the key word here is "suspected". As in any country governed under the rule of law, all are innocent until proven guilty.

Even those we tend to disfavor by association. However, proven guilty and they then wouldn't deport him, THAT story would be noteworthy.

Sorry, but this is headline sensationalism on the lowest level, as one would expect find in the Build Zeitung here in Germany.

#5 Karl Horst (Germany) on 2016-01-04 11:31 (Reply)

For those of you who want to know what's going on here in Germany, read these articles.

http://news.newsdirectory2.com/assaults-in-cologne-came-from-1000-guys-powerful-group/

http://newobserveronline.com/euro-new-year-sex-crimes-arson-and-terror/

#6 Karl Horst (Germany) on 2016-01-04 12:18 (Reply)

Regarding the EU Court interfering with Ireland's sovereignty, under the immigration laws or rules or regulations of just about every nation being deported isn't a criminal matter it is a civil or administrative matter, requiring only a preponderance of the evidence. Secondly, there is no "right" for any person not a citizen of some particular nation to remain in that nation against the decision of its government. If you doubt or disagree, post a reply and set out the charter or constitution in which such a right is guaranteed and then ask yourself what national government will enforce such a right.

#7 Ike on 2016-01-04 12:33 (Reply)

Dirty Girls cannot run Clean Government,corporations or Universities

Just sayin

#8 facultywife on 2016-01-04 14:45 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Monday, January 4. 2016

Monday morning links